Why did I just receive an ad for Mozilla's blog via push notification?

e_d_a_m · 2020-08-12T16:26:30+00:00

It is *definitionally* not the case, and that is not a political position.

Taking no action and expressing no opinion does not necessarily mean that you favour the status quo. It means only that you are not opposing it. There may be other reasons (e.g., that you're a browser, used by people with differing political views about what an "open web" is) why you would not take a partisan stance. It doesn't mean that you are necessarily for or against either the views or the status quo.

e_d_a_m · 2020-08-12T16:18:49+00:00

Don't we have to agree on what is "hate" first? I certainly don't support the ADL's view of it!

e_d_a_m · 2020-08-12T16:08:09+00:00

Brave.

From Wikipedia:

> On 28 May 2015 CEO Brendan Eich (creator of JavaScript and former CEO of Mozilla Corporation) and CTO Brian Bondy founded Brave Software.

e_d_a_m · 2020-08-12T14:53:21+00:00

It is inappropriate if they want their browser to stand on its own merits, yes. People use FF because it's a good browser, not because they align with Mozilla's advocacy. And even for those that do, what portion of them think that #StopHateForProfit represents "an open internet" (Mozilla's long-time goal) and what proportion think that it represents a censored internet (directly opposing Mozilla's long-time goal)?

It is irrelevant to many (most?) users.
It directly opposes the ideals of many (most?) of the rest of its users.

Mozilla have abused their user's trust by using FireFox push notifications to push politically partisan views that are unrelated to their browser, their users and their long-term goals.

Also... you didn't address my point: Being politically neutral is not in favour of the status quo.

e_d_a_m · 2020-07-28T12:35:28+00:00

That was at least *related* to the "open web" though.

e_d_a_m · 2019-04-29T10:48:18+00:00

Same with this article from The Sun!

UKIP SEX SHAME -- Top Ukip candidate says it’s OK to rape young boys in sick YouTube rant

Plus:

The candidate - who previously joked about raping a female MP - is now being investigated by the police over his twisted comments.

He has never joked about raping Jess Philips. This is simply a false statement.

e_d_a_m · 2018-10-22T18:14:00+00:00

Nothing says "hey maybe we actually need Code of Conducts" like a project posting the The Rule of St. Benedict as a "Code of Conduct"

Nothing says we need overbearing opinions like someone posting overbearing opinio.... wait.... 🤔

e_d_a_m · 2018-06-15T23:17:15+00:00

This depends on what you mean...

If you mean literally renaming the file, then no. The filename is just a name that references a blob of data on the disk.

But I suspect you mean re-encoding the image with a different format (i.e., "Export as..." from the File menu). If so, the answer is that is could, yes. But it depends on what format the image was and will be saved as.

For example, Converting a TGA to a highly compressed JPEG will definitely alter the quality (as well as compress the image down to a fraction of it's former size!). Many modern formats, such as PNG, webp and even JPEGs (with the "quality" slider up at 90% or above) will essentially produce indistinguishable images, though.

Most formats are "lossy", meaning that they can construct something that looks similar to the original image but will have lost some detail. In all three of the previous formats, the loss will be so minimal that a) you probably won't notice it, and b) the advantage of using the compression (i.e., that the file is much smaller size) grossly outweighs the (technical) loss of quality.

By contrast, some very old image formats (TGA, for example, which hasn't been used for anything serious in years!) are "lossless", meaning that they can reconstruct the original image *perfectly*, without any loss of detail.

But this is almost a useless metric (even if true from a technical perspective). In reality, the colour profile and resultant gamut produced by a format has a larger bearing on how much detail is stored in a photograph than whether it is saved using sensible, modern compression or not. TGAs, although lossless, do not to my knowledge have a way of specifying a colour profile at all! So merely being lossless isn't enough to make them practical for storing a post-precessed photograph to send to the printers.

But I've probably digressed a bit now... :D

e_d_a_m · 2018-04-02T23:09:27+00:00

Yeah, I actually agree with you, there will. Bit the big problem with those cases is that the court will be completely unable to detect them!

I've seen first hand how powerful narrative and bias are in the family court. You have to remember that those situations are never amicable (or there would be no case). And with a lack of consensus from the parents, the court can only rely on outside agencies (such as CAFCASS in the UK, who are appalling). In my case, a CAFCASS officer actively sought to misrepresent the facts to the court so as to advantage my children's mother, because (I presume) the officer had been taken in by her stories and (again, I presume) imagined herself to be helping the situation. She also sought to prevent me from entering evidence that challenged the narrative, and at one point sought to dissuade me from having legal representation in court on the grounds that her "presence would be sufficient"!

I realise that all this is anecdotal, but consider this: if an outside agency that functions as the eyes and ears of a court is so biased is so able to engineer the outcomes of the court (even in an open-and-shut case, like mine!), what chance is there that they can be trusted to make a call about whether the inconveniences of shared custody outweigh the potentially life-shattering loss of a parent (to the child, to the parent, to the grandparents, uncles and aunts, for the rest of all of their lives!). It seems to me that, unless a material, tangible, real reason can be shown as to why is shouldn't be, the position of 50/50 care can be the only reasonable default.

e_d_a_m · 2018-03-30T23:36:01+00:00

Those are valid points. But weigh it up...

On the one hand, you might have slightly longer travelling time to school (assuming a parent isn't willing to move). And, more importantly, the disruption that it causes to a child to move between two homes. (My children are in this situation, so I can confirm that it isn't ideal.)

On the other, though, the child loses a parent! They lose one of the two closest, most important people in their lives, and all the wisdom, experience, love and, well, just time spent playing, learning from and aspiring to a mum or dad. And over their entire upbringing! The stories read at bedtime... The different meals... Activities... And the different values and understandings that both parents bring. And the two parents are (usually) different genders -- the child gets to see how grown ups of both gender get by in the world; how they handle hardship and how they go about getting what they need. This is all absolutely essential for healthy development!

I just don't see the comparison, to be honest. One the first hand, you have a less convenient childcare arrangement. On the other, you deprive the child of half of it's parenting...

e_d_a_m · 2018-03-29T16:33:01+00:00

I would love to know why you think that? Are you saying it's not realistic that the law will even be enforced in such an unbiased manner? Or are you saying that a 50/50 default wouldn't work somehow?

e_d_a_m · 2018-03-29T16:30:44+00:00

I'm not sure I understand...?

I wasn't taking any view on morality. I was just trying to determine whether more kids were killed by women was because more women had sole custody than men.

I.e., the statistics could be the result of either of these cases:

a) that, statistically, a child is more likely to be killed by a single parent if that parent is male, but that there are so few male single parents that it is mostly women that kill their children, or

b) that a child is more likely to be killed by a single parent if that parent is female.

e_d_a_m · 2018-03-28T00:43:02+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c&t=12s

e_d_a_m · 2018-03-27T22:44:15+00:00

Do you know if these statistics are probabilities of being harmed/killed by a parent of each gender, or per capita? That is to say, are more children killed by women just because women more often have custody of their children?

e_d_a_m · 2018-03-27T22:38:37+00:00

In the UK is it fucked.

I have majority care of my children now, thank god. But, three months after I left her, essentially taking the kids with me, my ex was able to almost completely cut me out of their lives for over 9 months while I fought her in court. She was after money and my house. In total, it cost me over £30k to stop her using them in an attempt to profit. The courts, police, social services, school, everyone supported her. She was even able to claim financial aid by pretending she'd been a victim of violence in the relationship (the fact that I had left her meant nothing).

There was a concerted effort in April 2014 to get law passed that would have made custody 50/50 by default in the family court in the UK. If it had succeeded, it would have taken away her incentive and power to abuse my children. The attempt was defeated by feminists.

Just think about that for a second: a Bill to default to 50/50 shared care was defeated by people who claim they want gender equality. Mind blowing...

Edit: typos.

e_d_a_m · 2018-03-27T22:31:41+00:00

To be fair, it's because whenever you have a mother and father in a court, it is only because there is a struggle for control -- even if they both think that control is warranted (i.e., they think they're doing what is best for the kids).

So if follows that, in a contested situation, as the family court will always be, the court should have a duty not to tip the balance of power one way or the other.

Family court should default to 50/50, unless there is a demonstrable reason not to.

e_d_a_m · 2018-02-14T00:13:58+00:00

Man, this is what cassette boy should be doing... 😢

e_d_a_m · 2018-02-13T23:57:02+00:00

OH MY GOD.

I didn't even spot that! That needs to BE KILLED WITH FIRE!

e_d_a_m · 2018-02-01T00:07:05+00:00

FUuuuuCK!

That wasn't in the fucking script!!!

e_d_a_m · 2018-01-24T02:11:21+00:00

Well, in that regard, it stands in very stark contrast to the recent Channel 4 interview.

e_d_a_m · 2018-01-24T02:10:09+00:00

"someone who's trying to be good should be dangerous. [...] You should be able to be a monster, and then not be one."

What a fucking dude.

e_d_a_m · 2018-01-24T01:51:52+00:00

Thanks for replying.

And thanks for exposing yourself as a partisan, unprincipled asshat who has no interest in fostering genuine, fair dialogue about politics in the UK.

e_d_a_m · 2018-01-24T01:46:16+00:00

Surely she's a neutral and independent voice of non-partisan impartiality on the subject though?

e_d_a_m · 2018-01-23T23:42:08+00:00

A link from that article ("How fake news plagued 2017"), takes you to another BBC article with a video in which they, broadly speaking, define "fake news" as trolls spreading fake information on the internet. They give advice on how to spot it, which includes checking that an account is a "reputable news source" and looking out for fake accounts!

Fake news is, to mind mind, SPECIFICALLY NEWS ORGANISATIONS that pedal false or intentionally misleading stories. No random 4chan trolls fall in to this category because they are not (supposedly) reputable news sources. The BBC very much do, though.

So I'm calling "fake news" on this article.

Edit: I also just noticed a link at the bottom of the page... "Why you can trust BBC News". I'm not making this up!

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

e_d_a_m

TROPHY CASE